None of these is remotely Newcombish. You only get Newcomb paradox when you assume causal loop, and try to solve the problem using tools devised for situations without causal loops.
It is the Newcomb Problem. It may be tricky and counter-intuitive but it isn’t a paradox. More importantly The Newcomb Problem does not rely on a causal loop. Some form of reliable prediction is necessary but that does not imply a causal loop.
This isn’t the case when you predict that a calculator on which you input 2+2 will output 4. Why would it necessarily be the case for predicting a person?
It is the Newcomb Problem. It may be tricky and counter-intuitive but it isn’t a paradox. More importantly The Newcomb Problem does not rely on a causal loop. Some form of reliable prediction is necessary but that does not imply a causal loop.
reliable prediction = causal loop
This isn’t the case when you predict that a calculator on which you input 2+2 will output 4. Why would it necessarily be the case for predicting a person?
Why was this voted down so hard? Please explain. It sounds reasonable to me.